what is Speaking in tongues

[rewriter]

Paul's comment pertained to the Spiritual gift of tongues. There is a difference.

Please elaborate on this difference, the spiritual gift of speaking in tongues as a gift from the Holy Spirit as opposed to speaking in tongues as gifted by the Holy Spirit at baptism. It appears to me to be a case of your making a difference between a gift from the Holy Spirit and the same gift from the Holy Spirit under different circumstances.

 

[TMS]

The scripture is clear...NO MAN UNDERSTANDS HIM. This reveals the scripture is not referencing a foreign language that some know and can interpret.

1 Cor 14:2
For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for NO MAN UNDERSTANDETH HIM howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

1Co 14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, ....

he doesn't speak to people around him because he is speaking in a different language.

if i speak French to people that only understand English, no one will understand. It is an Unknown language.

.....but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

But God understands all. No man understands an unknown language but God does. So he is speaking mysteries..

 

[Roger316]

You really seem sincere. But in this case, you are sincerely wrong.

The spiritual gifts are supernatural manifestations of the Holy Spirit. They do not originate from human intellect, talent, or ability, but are initiated and directed by God according to His own will and purpose.

I agree with you that the Spirit is the source of the gift, but the New Testament never describes tongues as the supernatural ability to *speak* a foreign language. The miracle is not in the speaker’s mouth but in the hearer’s ear. In Acts 2, the disciples spoke their own Galilean speech, yet “each one heard them in his own language.” That is the pattern: one message, one language, many hearers—each receiving it in their own tongue. The gift of tongues is therefore a miracle of hearing, not a miracle of linguistic performance. The speaker is not suddenly fluent in fifteen languages; the Spirit enables the audience to understand the message in their own language.

The belief that tongues is the supernatural ability to speak a foreign language is widespread, but it does not match the biblical descriptions. If the gift were the ability to speak another language, then the speaker would know what he was saying and would not need an interpreter. Yet Paul tells the *speaker* to pray that **he** may interpret (1 Cor 14:13), which only makes sense if he is speaking his own language and the miracle is occurring in the hearing. Likewise, Paul’s concern is always intelligibility—“unless you utter by the tongue words easy to understand, how shall it be known what is spoken?” (1 Cor 14:9). The issue is not linguistic ability but **comprehension**. The biblical gift of tongues is God ensuring that the message is heard clearly across language barriers, not a display of supernatural polyglot speech.

These gifts are not natural abilities developed by man, but divine manifestations given by the Spirit "to profit withal" (1 Corinthians 12:7).

I agree completely — the gifts are divine manifestations, not human abilities. That’s exactly why I’m saying the gift of tongues is *not* the learned ability to speak a foreign language. If it were simply a supernatural skill in speaking another language, then it would still be a human‑directed act: I would choose the language, form the sentences, and know what I’m saying. But Paul describes tongues as something the Spirit does *through* the speaker, not something the speaker does *with* the Spirit’s help. The miracle is in the Spirit’s manifestation, not in human linguistic performance. That’s why the biblical pattern is one person speaking while others hear in their own language — the Spirit is manifesting Himself, not enhancing human ability.

 

[Roger316]

No offense. But ones personal opinion doesn't matter. Scripture does. And it reveals and confirms over, and over that tongues is the sign that accompanies the infilling.

I appreciate what you’re saying, and I’m not trying to elevate my opinion above Scripture. I’m genuinely trying to understand what Scripture itself requires. At this point, I’m still not convinced that Acts intends to teach that speaking in tongues will always accompany confession or the infilling. I’m open to being shown otherwise, but I’m looking for a place where Scripture explicitly states that tongues must occur every time someone receives the Spirit. Acts certainly records several occasions where tongues appear, but narrative description is not the same as a universal command or doctrinal requirement. So my honest question is: is there any passage that clearly teaches tongues will always accompany salvation or the infilling of the Spirit? I’m willing to consider it if such a passage exists; I just haven’t seen one yet.

 

[Roger316]

Wrong. You are referring exclusively to the speaking in tongues that happened on the day of Pentecost.

I understand what you’re saying, and I’m not claiming that Pentecost is the only example of tongues or that everything in Acts 2 must be repeated exactly the same way. My point is simply that Acts 2 gives us the clearest biblical description of what the gift actually is: one message spoken, many languages heard. Nothing in Scripture ever says that Pentecost was a different kind of tongues than what Paul discusses in 1 Corinthians. In fact, Paul assumes his readers already know what tongues are, which makes sense only if the same basic phenomenon was already familiar from Acts. So I’m not limiting tongues to Pentecost — I’m saying Pentecost provides the baseline definition unless Scripture explicitly teaches a different kind of tongues elsewhere.

Later, in the letter to the Corinthians, speaking in unknown tongues, or languages unknown to the speaker, had to be interpreted,

I hear what you’re saying about interpretation in 1 Corinthians, and I’m not ignoring that. My point is simply that the need for interpretation does not prove that the Corinthians were speaking foreign languages. Paul never says the speaker was speaking a language he didn’t know. In fact, he tells the speaker to pray that he may interpret (1 Cor 14:13), which only makes sense if the speaker knows what he said but needs the Spirit to make the message clear to the congregation. That fits the same pattern we see in Acts 2: one message spoken, many languages heard. So I’m not limiting tongues to Pentecost — I’m saying Scripture never teaches a second, different kind of tongues. The burden of proof is on anyone who claims that the tongues in Corinth were fundamentally different from the tongues in Acts.

people did not hear the tongue in their own language. Sometimes it was the tongue or language of angels.

The tongues talking I hear in Pentecostal circles always sounds like imitative gibberish, nonsense syllables, or a variant on Aramaic.

I hear what you’re saying about “the tongues of angels,” but in 1 Corinthians 13 Paul is not describing an actual heavenly language. He’s using a hypothetical argument to make a point about love. When he says, “If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels,” he’s doing what he does throughout the chapter—piling up exaggerated “even if” statements to show that without love, even the most spectacular gifts would be worthless. The same pattern continues in chapter 14: he argues from absurd or extreme scenarios (“even if someone speaks in a language no one understands…”) to expose the Corinthians’ misuse of the gift. So Paul is not teaching that people actually spoke angelic languages; he’s using a rhetorical device to show that unintelligible speech—whatever it is—does not edify the church.
0
Once you recognize Paul’s use of hypothetical exaggeration, the argument that “tongues might be angelic” loses its footing. Paul never says anyone did speak an angelic language. He only says, “Even if I did…”—and then immediately says it would be meaningless without love. Likewise, in chapter 14 he says, “Even if someone speaks in a language no one understands…”—not because that was happening, but because he’s showing the absurdity of valuing unintelligible speech over edification. His whole point is that tongues must be understood, which fits the Acts 2 pattern of one message spoken and many languages heard.

 

[Dave123]

Acts 19:1-7 sheds more light on the topic. The account demonstrates that the same gospel message and response first preached on the Day of Pentecost remained in effect more than twenty years later.

When Paul arrived at Ephesus, he encountered disciples who had believed but had only received John's baptism. Upon learning this, Paul instructed them concerning Jesus Christ. They were then water baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, and afterward received the Holy Ghost, speaking with tongues and prophesying (Acts 19:5-6).

This is significant because it occurred decades after Pentecost. The message had not changed. The same essential elements remained in place: faith in Jesus Christ, baptism in His name, and the reception of the Holy Ghost.

The account also reveals that Paul remained in Ephesus and continued teaching the same message. Acts 19:8-10 records that he taught in the synagogue and later in the school of Tyrannus for approximately two years after some rejected his preaching. Rather than introducing a different gospel, Paul continued proclaiming the same truth throughout Asia.

Acts 19 therefore stands as powerful evidence that the apostolic message was not limited to the Day of Pentecost, nor was it intended only for particular groups of people. More than twenty years later, the Apostle Paul was still preaching and administering the same gospel experience. The account demonstrates continuity between Peter's message in Acts 2 and Paul's ministry in Acts 19.

Because the apostles consistently preached the same gospel throughout the New Testament era, Acts 19 provides strong evidence that these requirements were not temporary provisions but remained part of the apostolic message for all New Testament believers. The New Testament contains no record of the apostles replacing or revoking this message.

Lastly, the Ephesian believers of Acts 19 are the same believers to whom Paul later wrote the Epistle to the Ephesians. In Ephesians 1:13, Paul reminded them: "In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise." (note the reference to the promise in Acts 2:38-39)

Thus, the Ephesian letter was written to people who had personally experienced the Acts 19 pattern of rebaptism in Jesus' name and receiving the Holy Ghost, confirming that this experience was part of the "word of truth" and "gospel of your salvation" that Paul preached to them.

Water baptism never saved anyone. It's a type and a symbolic testimony. It's for those who cannot see spiritual truths. It teaches, it points, but has not power. The one true 'placing into' is with/by the Holy Spirit and is a baptism by faith, not water. Water baptism publicly declares that placing into, and that faith, after the fact.

You shouldn't cling to those few mistranslated verses. Those same few verses can linguistically be equally translated as water baptism as the result. Believe and be saved. That's the Gospel. Then water baptism. Just like here.

Acts 10:44-48 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter answered, "Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days.

These in ACTS 19 were true OT believers, who were predestined to believe the Gospel per Romans 8:28-29. But they had not yet heard the Gospel, as there understanding ended at John the Baptist, who preached repentance and the coming Messiah, and that while John baptized with water, One greater than Him who will baptize them with the Holy Spirit and fire. Everyone gets baptized by Jesus, either unto life, or unto judgment. They didn't know the Gospel, and were not indwelt (placed into [Jesus] with the [indwelling] Holy Spirit, called the baptism with the Holy Spirit, until they heard and believed the Gospel. Bringing these "sheep" home who the Father who were already given to the Son, who would hear Him and believe. That did not end until all true OT believers were gathered. That's the transition. When all were gathered, the transition from the OT promise to the NT realization of that promise ended. That's why they spoke in other languages, just like all the way back at Pentecost. The same message from that sign was given. The Gentiles are grafted in. Judgment is coming to Israel as a nation, repent and believe.

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!

What happened in Acts 19 was true of all true OT believers. It was God providentially governing these events so that all these true OT believers would hear the Gospel. We get to peek inside God's providence in action, and see this play out as Peter is sent to Cornelius to bring the Gospel. Likewise with Lydia, Pentecost and shortly after were for true OT believers who heard the Gospel and believed before Jesus death, resurrection, and ascension, like these in John 7:38-39, who were owed the promise. Afterwards, we see the focus goes to OT believers who had not yet heard the Gospel, but were already declared righteous by their OT faith, like those in Acts 19.

Dave

 

[Anchorite]

These in ACTS 19 were true OT believers, who were predestined to believe the Gospel per Romans 8:28-29. But they had not yet heard the Gospel, as there understanding ended at John the Baptist, who preached repentance and the coming Messiah, and that while John baptized with water, One greater than Him who will baptize them with the Holy Spirit and fire. Afterwards, we see the focus goes to OT believers who had not yet heard the Gospel, but were already declared righteous by their OT faith, like those in Acts 19.

I see no indication in Acts 19 that anyone was declared righteous by their OT faith. We can assert that if some people were adhering to true OT faith, trusting in and looking for the promised messiah, they would be receptive to the gospel, and be declared righteous by believing in Christ, but other OT oriented people hardened their hearts.


Acts 19

8 And he went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God.

9 But when divers were hardened, and believed not, but spake evil of that way before the multitude, he departed from them, and separated the disciples, disputing daily in the school of one Tyrannus.

10 And this continued by the space of two years; so that all they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks.


Romans 5

1 Having been declared righteous, then, by faith, we have peace toward God through our Lord Jesus Christ,

2 through whom also we have the access by the faith into this grace in which we have stood, and we boast on the hope of the glory of God.

 

[Dave123]

I see no indication in Acts 19 that anyone was declared righteous by their OT faith. We can assert that if some people were adhering to true OT faith, trusting in and looking for the promised messiah, they would be receptive to the gospel, and be declared righteous by believing in Christ, but other OT oriented people hardened their hearts.


Acts 19

8 And he went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God.

9 But when divers were hardened, and believed not, but spake evil of that way before the multitude, he departed from them, and separated the disciples, disputing daily in the school of one Tyrannus.

10 And this continued by the space of two years; so that all they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks.


Romans 5

1 Having been declared righteous, then, by faith, we have peace toward God through our Lord Jesus Christ,

2 through whom also we have the access by the faith into this grace in which we have stood, and we boast on the hope of the glory of God.

Look at the context of Acts 19. They were disciples of John the Baptist. That means they were water baptized already by John for repentance because they agreed with his message. That's what water baptism was in the OT, publicly identifying with ones teaching.

Acts 19: 3 "And he said to them, "Into what then were you baptized?" So they said, "Into John's baptism."

Paul understood perfectly what was needed by their answer. Their understanding ended with John the Baptist and they had never heard the Gospel. They were disciples of John the Baptist and agreed with His message and the coming Messiah, that's what the significance of that water baptism is. They were true OT believers already declared righteous by faith. They were predestined to believe the Gospel, as all that the Father gave the Son would come to Him and hear Him.

Dave

 

[Wansvic]

Please elaborate on this difference, the spiritual gift of speaking in tongues as a gift from the Holy Spirit as opposed to speaking in tongues as gifted by the Holy Spirit at baptism. It appears to me to be a case of your making a difference between a gift from the Holy Spirit and the same gift from the Holy Spirit under different circumstances.

The Initial sign of speaking in tongues and daily prayer language is not the same as the Gift of Speaking in tongues.

Paul explains that the Spiritual gift of Tongues operates as a public gift in the congregation. It's a ministry operation. A Spirit filled individual presents God's message in tongues, that is then revealed via the gift of interpretion for edification of a body of believers. (1 Cor 12-14)

Tongues spoken upon receiving the Holy Ghost and in private prayer serve distinctly different purposes. Further details are in Post #11

 

[Wansvic]

I appreciate what you’re saying, and I’m not trying to elevate my opinion above Scripture. I’m genuinely trying to understand what Scripture itself requires. At this point, I’m still not convinced that Acts intends to teach that speaking in tongues will always accompany confession or the infilling. I’m open to being shown otherwise, but I’m looking for a place where Scripture explicitly states that tongues must occur every time someone receives the Spirit. Acts certainly records several occasions where tongues appear, but narrative description is not the same as a universal command or doctrinal requirement. So my honest question is: is there any passage that clearly teaches tongues will always accompany salvation or the infilling of the Spirit? I’m willing to consider it if such a passage exists; I just haven’t seen one yet.

Please take the time to look at and really consider the following, I think it will help you to see the truth.

The Bible does not contain a single verse that states in these exact words, "Every person who receives the Holy Ghost will speak with tongues." However, many biblical doctrines are established not by a single explicit statement, but by the consistent pattern of Scripture.

The Book of Acts is the inspired historical record of how people actually received the Holy Ghost in the apostolic church. When Acts records people receiving the Holy Ghost, speaking in tongues is the only outward sign specifically associated with the initial reception of the Spirit:

• The Jews at Pentecost spoke with tongues (Acts 2:4).
• The Samaritans experienced an observable manifestation when they received the Holy Ghost (Acts 8:17-18).
• The Gentiles in Cornelius' house spoke with tongues, which convinced the Jewish believers that they had received the Holy Ghost (Acts 10:44-46).
• The disciples at Ephesus spoke with tongues when they received the Holy Ghost about twenty years after Pentecost (Acts 19:6).

Furthermore, Paul asked, "Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?" (Acts 19:2), indicating that receiving the Holy Ghost was a recognizable experience, not merely an invisible assumption.

NOTE: Acts 19 Is significant because it serves as the strongest evidence that speaking in tongues was not simply a transitional sign for different people groups, but the recurring outward manifestation accompanying the reception of the Holy Ghost​

If Acts 2, 8, and 10 stood alone, one might argue that tongues merely marked the opening of salvation to Jews, Samaritans, and Gentiles. However, Acts 19 introduces a different circumstance:

• It occurs many years later.
• It involves ordinary disciples, not a new ethnic group.
• It records the same experience.
• It demonstrates that tongues was not merely a one-time sign announcing a new group entering the church.

​

The Disciples at Ephesus — Acts 19​

This is the account strengthens the point.
These men were neither the original Jews of Pentecost nor the first Gentiles.
This event occurred roughly two decades after Pentecost.
Paul first asked:

"Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?" (Acts 19:2)

This question itself suggests receiving the Holy Ghost was viewed as a distinct, identifiable experience.
Had there been no recognizable evidence, it becomes difficult to explain:

• How Paul could ask the question.
• How the men could answer it.
• How anyone would know whether they had or had not received the Holy Ghost.

After being baptized in the name of Jesus:

"And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied." (Acts 19:6)

Again, tongues accompanies the reception of the Holy Ghost.

​

The Logical Questions Raised​

1. If there is no identifiable sign, how does a person know whether they have received the Holy Ghost or should continue seeking?
   • Jesus instructed believers to ask for the Holy Spirit (Luke 11:13).
   • An identifiable reception experience would seem necessary to know when that promise has been fulfilled.
2. How could Paul ask, "Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?"
   • The question implies both Paul and the disciples understood there was a recognizable experience associated with receiving the Spirit.
3. How did the Samaritans know they had not yet received the Holy Ghost?
   • They had believed and been baptized, yet Luke specifically states the Spirit had "fallen upon none of them."
   • There appears to have been a distinction between believing, being baptized, and receiving the Holy Ghost.
4. What convinced the Samaritans later that they had received the Holy Ghost?
   • Something observable occurred.
   • Simon "saw" it.
   • Luke does not name the manifestation, but it was sufficiently evident that no one questioned whether the Spirit had been received.

 

[Wansvic]

Water baptism never saved anyone. It's a type and a symbolic testimony. It's for those who cannot see spiritual truths. It teaches, it points, but has not power. The one true 'placing into' is with/by the Holy Spirit and is a baptism by faith, not water. Water baptism publicly declares that placing into, and that faith, after the fact.

You shouldn't cling to those few mistranslated verses. Those same few verses can linguistically be equally translated as water baptism as the result. Believe and be saved. That's the Gospel. Then water baptism. Just like here.

Acts 10:44-48 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter answered, "Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days.

These in ACTS 19 were true OT believers, who were predestined to believe the Gospel per Romans 8:28-29. But they had not yet heard the Gospel, as there understanding ended at John the Baptist, who preached repentance and the coming Messiah, and that while John baptized with water, One greater than Him who will baptize them with the Holy Spirit and fire. Everyone gets baptized by Jesus, either unto life, or unto judgment. They didn't know the Gospel, and were not indwelt (placed into [Jesus] with the [indwelling] Holy Spirit, called the baptism with the Holy Spirit, until they heard and believed the Gospel. Bringing these "sheep" home who the Father who were already given to the Son, who would hear Him and believe. That did not end until all true OT believers were gathered. That's the transition. When all were gathered, the transition from the OT promise to the NT realization of that promise ended. That's why they spoke in other languages, just like all the way back at Pentecost. The same message from that sign was given. The Gentiles are grafted in. Judgment is coming to Israel as a nation, repent and believe.

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!

What happened in Acts 19 was true of all true OT believers. It was God providentially governing these events so that all these true OT believers would hear the Gospel. We get to peek inside God's providence in action, and see this play out as Peter is sent to Cornelius to bring the Gospel. Likewise with Lydia, Pentecost and shortly after were for true OT believers who heard the Gospel and believed before Jesus death, resurrection, and ascension, like these in John 7:38-39, who were owed the promise. Afterwards, we see the focus goes to OT believers who had not yet heard the Gospel, but were already declared righteous by their OT faith, like those in Acts 19.

Dave

Both water baptism in the name of Jesus for remission of sins, AND receiving the Holy Spirit are essential for all those living in the NT era as recorded in detailed NT conversion accounts. (Acts 2:4-42, 8:12-18, 10:43-48, 19:1-7) The result is born again believers have been buried with Jesus, and also have His Holy Spirit dwelling inside of them.

 

[Dave123]

Both water baptism in the name of Jesus for remission of sins, AND receiving the Holy Spirit are essential for all those living in the NT era as recorded in detailed NT conversion accounts. (Acts 2:4-42, 8:12-18, 10:43-48, 19:1-7) The result is born again believers have been buried with Jesus, and also have His Holy Spirit dwelling inside of them.

Believe and be saved, that's the Gospel. Believe, then Jesus places the Holy Spirit in us, making us one with Him, that's the baptism that saves. Water has no part in the one true baptism. It's a placing into by faith. A spiritual immersion, not water immersion. We are placed into Christ by/with one spirit, into one Body. 1 Corinthians 12:13.

Water only outwardly testifies to that fact after the fact.

 

[Roger316]

Please take the time to look at and really consider the following, I think it will help you to see the truth.

The Bible does not contain a single verse that states in these exact words, "Every person who receives the Holy Ghost will speak with tongues."

I agree. For this reason, we cannot conclude that speaking in tongues is normative for the church.

 

[Wansvic]

Believe and be saved, that's the Gospel. Believe, then Jesus places the Holy Spirit in us, making us one with Him, that's the baptism that saves. Water has no part in the one true baptism. It's a placing into by faith. A spiritual immersion, not water immersion. We are placed into Christ by/with one spirit, into one Body. 1 Corinthians 12:13.

Water only outwardly testifies to that fact after the fact.

I agree that it is by the Spirit that we are baptized into one body. This is a reference to water baptism in the name of Jesus (we are buried with Jesus) wherein God brings about remission of sin as promised. (Rom. 6:3-6) The Corinthian scripture also reveals we will drink in/receive the Holy Spirit. Speaking in tongues is the sign that confirms the reality. (Acts 2:4,33; 10:43-48, 19:1-7, 22:16)

"For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit." 1 Cor. 12:13

Peter said, "To him (Jesus) give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins." (Acts 10:43) A few verses later we see this reality come to pass for believers Cornelius and his household:

"Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
;And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord..." Acts 10:47-48


Ananias' revealed what occurs upon submitting to water baptism. Paul. "And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." Acts 22:16

"Then Peter said unto them, ...be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call...
Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls." Acts 2:38-39, 41

And as pointed out numerous times, Paul's question reveals a person does not receive the Holy Ghost the instant they believe. "Have you received the Holy Ghost since you believed?" (Acts 19:1-7) The Samaritan account reveals the same. They believed, got water baptized in the name of Jesus, yet waited days before receiving the Holy Ghost. (Acts 8:12-18)

God's word admonishes that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.: 2 Tim. 3:16-17

 

[Wansvic]

I agree. For this reason, we cannot conclude that speaking in tongues is normative for the church.

It is sad that you would ignore what the entirety of the referenced scriptures convey. David, a man after God's own heart, said something that all should take seriously:

"My son, if thou wilt receive my words, and hide my commandments with thee;
So that thou incline thine ear unto wisdom, and apply thine heart to understanding;
Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding;
If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures;
Then shalt thou understand the fear of the Lord, and find the knowledge of God." Proverbs 2:3-5


The Bible does not contain a single verse that states in these exact words, "Every person who receives the Holy Ghost will speak with tongues." However, many biblical doctrines are established not by a single explicit statement, but by the consistent pattern of Scripture.

The Book of Acts is the inspired historical record of how people actually received the Holy Ghost in the apostolic church. When Acts records people receiving the Holy Ghost, speaking in tongues is the only outward sign specifically associated with the initial reception of the Spirit:

• The Jews at Pentecost spoke with tongues (Acts 2:4).
• The Samaritans experienced an observable manifestation when they received the Holy Ghost (Acts 8:17-18).
• The Gentiles in Cornelius' house spoke with tongues, which convinced the Jewish believers that they had received the Holy Ghost (Acts 10:44-46).
• The disciples at Ephesus spoke with tongues when they received the Holy Ghost about twenty years after Pentecost (Acts 19:6).

Furthermore, Paul asked, "Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?" (Acts 19:2), indicating that receiving the Holy Ghost was a recognizable experience, not merely an invisible assumption.

NOTE: Acts 19 Is significant because:​

If Acts 2, 8, and 10 stood alone, one might argue that tongues merely marked the opening of salvation to Jews, Samaritans, and Gentiles. However, Acts 19 introduces a different circumstance:

• It occurs many years later.
• It involves ordinary disciples, not a new ethnic group.
• It records the same experience.
• It demonstrates that tongues was not merely a one-time sign announcing a new group entering the church.

These men were neither the original Jews of Pentecost nor the first Gentiles.
This event occurred roughly two decades after Pentecost.
Paul first asked:

"Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?" (Acts 19:2)

This question itself suggests receiving the Holy Ghost was viewed as a distinct, identifiable experience.
Had there been no recognizable evidence, it becomes difficult to explain:

• How Paul could ask the question.
• How the men could answer it.
• How anyone would know whether they had or had not received the Holy Ghost.

After believing and being baptized in the name of Jesus, Paul laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied." (Acts 19:6)

Again, tongues accompanies the reception of the Holy Ghost.

1. If there is no identifiable sign, how does a person know whether they have received the Holy Ghost or should continue seeking?
   • Jesus instructed believers to ask for the Holy Spirit (Luke 11:13).
   • An identifiable reception experience would seem necessary to know when that promise has been fulfilled.
2. How could Paul ask, "Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?"
   • The question implies both Paul and the disciples understood there was a recognizable experience associated with receiving the Spirit.
3. How did the Samaritans know they had not yet received the Holy Ghost?
   • They had believed and been baptized, yet Luke specifically states the Spirit had "fallen upon none of them."
   • There appears to have been a distinction between believing, being baptized, and receiving the Holy Ghost.
4. What convinced the Samaritans later that they had received the Holy Ghost?
   • Something observable occurred.
   • Simon "saw" it.
   • Luke does not name the manifestation, but it was sufficiently evident that no one questioned whether the Spirit had been received.

 

[Roger316]

It is sad that you would ignore what the entirety of the referenced scriptures convey.

The way I see it, the accounts of tongues after conversion in Acts don’t automatically imply an ongoing norm for the entire church age. In each case, the Holy Spirit is doing something specific in redemptive history—teaching the apostles that Gentiles are clean, confirming Samaritans as full members of the people of God, or publicly validating the gospel’s expansion into new territory. Once that lesson was learned and the church embraced Jew–Gentile unity, the need for that particular sign diminished. Scripture never states that tongues must continue as a universal marker of conversion, and the New Testament epistles—written to guide the ongoing life of the church—never command believers to expect tongues at conversion. So if the Spirit grants tongues today, He does so according to His own purposes, but the biblical pattern doesn’t require it to be common or normative.

 

[Wansvic]

The way I see it, the accounts of tongues after conversion in Acts don’t automatically imply an ongoing norm for the entire church age. In each case, the Holy Spirit is doing something specific in redemptive history—teaching the apostles that Gentiles are clean, confirming Samaritans as full members of the people of God, or publicly validating the gospel’s expansion into new territory. Once that lesson was learned and the church embraced Jew–Gentile unity, the need for that particular sign diminished. Scripture never states that tongues must continue as a universal marker of conversion, and the New Testament epistles—written to guide the ongoing life of the church—never command believers to expect tongues at conversion. So if the Spirit grants tongues today, He does so according to His own purposes, but the biblical pattern doesn’t require it to be common or normative.

As noted Acts 19 introduces a different circumstance:​

• It occurs many years later. 20+
• It involves ordinary disciples, not a new ethnic group.
• It records the same experience.
• It demonstrates that tongues was not merely a one-time sign announcing a new group entering the church.

These men were neither the original Jews of Pentecost nor the first Gentiles.
This event occurred roughly two decades after Pentecost, and involved approx. 12 men who along with Paul evangelized the area for a number of years. I don't believe it is coincidence that Acts 19 verse 7 records the number as being around 12 men. Why? Because 12 apostles began preaching the gospel message, and the last detailed conversion account speaks of 12 men continuing to preach that same message...

Consider as well that Paul later wrote to the Ephesians. (Eph. 1:13) He reminded them of when they were sealed with the Holy Ghost after trusting in Jesus and hearing the word of truth, the gospel of salvation. Clearly Paul's words were a reference to what's recorded in Acts 19:

"He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
7 And all the men were about twelve."

I hope you will study further and pray about this. Lastly, I want to thank you for such a cordial conversation. Be Blessed!

 

[Lamar]

God's Word does reveal miraculous gifts such as speaking in tongues and interpretation are manifestations of the Spirit.

1 Cor 12:8
For to one is given by the Spirit... divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:
But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, (1 Cor 12:8, 10-11)

1 Cor 14:26-27
How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.
If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.

No one is debating this.

What is dubious are the claims that it is happening today.

Your verses do not validate the claims of it happening today, only that it did happen.

Where are these physical supernatural manifestations happening???

Not claims of the events happening but the events themselves.

Tongues and the interpretation of tongues are real events and therefore are confirmable.

Where is this being done?

 

[Dave123]

I agree that it is by the Spirit that we are baptized into one body. This is a reference to water baptism in the name of Jesus (we are buried with Jesus) wherein God brings about remission of sin as promised. (Rom. 6:3-6) The Corinthian scripture also reveals we will drink in/receive the Holy Spirit. Speaking in tongues is the sign that confirms the reality. (Acts 2:4,33; 10:43-48, 19:1-7, 22:16)

Romans 6:3-6 is not speaking of water baptism. You're reading that into the text. It's the Spirit baptism that saves, not water. The word baptism is an action, a verb, and water is not part of the definition. That's the error that many, like Catholics, make today. They read the word baptism, and assume water into it's definition because they were taught that way. It's a baptism by faith that places us into Christ. Literally, the baptism with the Holy Spirit is the placing into Jesus Christ with the indwelling Holy Spirit. Jesus is the baptizer, not a OT priest who is obsolete, and the Holy Spirit is the agent of that baptism, not water. We have the High Priest Himself, Jesus, living inside us. That spiritual union gives us everything we need, as we are complete in Him and lacking nothing. We only need Him to mediate for us. No more priesthood, no more Temples, no more OT types, we have the Reality.

Colossians 2:9-14, Galatians 3:26-27, and 1 Peter 3:21 are all speaking of the Spirit baptism. Except when Peter tells us that which saves us is not water baptism, or, not the removal of filth from the flesh. The whole chapter 3 in Galatians applies.

"For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit." 1 Cor. 12:13

For by One Spirit, Capitol "S", the Holy Spirit, not water, we are placed into Jesus, the Body, the One True Church, and what we drink is spiritual.

Peter said, "To him (Jesus) give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins." (Acts 10:43) A few verses later we see this reality come to pass for believers Cornelius and his household:

"Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
;And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord..." Acts 10:47-48

They had already received the Holy Spirit before they were water baptized. I'm not saying for people to not get water baptized, it's an important public testimony, but it doesn't save anyone. What it points to saves people, the baptism by Jesus as a result of faith.

Ananias' revealed what occurs upon submitting to water baptism. Paul. "And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." Acts 22:16

"Then Peter said unto them, ...be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Again, the order in the original languages in that passage and the few others like it, water baptism can equally be translated as the result, which is in line with the rest of Scripture. It's the clear Gospel message to believe and be saved. Water baptism cannot save anyone. I can show you verses that say the same thing, but are absent water baptism, because it's the faith that saves. Believe and be saved.

1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.

The Jewish baptism (Mikveh), which John built on, taking the many baptisms of the Jewish tradition by Law (which acted as a ceremonial cleanser of sorts), and did point towards Jesus in a way that OT believers would understand, (they, lacking the clear revelation of the NT), and turned it into a single prophetic act which pointed towards Jesus focusing on a public declaration of repentance. Both Johns water baptism and the NT water baptism pointed to the same Jesus, it's just that one was more focused and clear after the New revelation was revealed. It's the same revelation in the NT as the OT, as Jesus testified to, it's just more clear. The NT water baptism does not replace John's water baptism, rather, builds on it making a more precise and clear picture of Jesus' death and resurrection specifically. No magic formula. Water baptism changes over history because it's main purpose was to point, not to save. That idea is obvious when we see John in Matthew contrast his water baptism with the one true baptism that saves, the baptism with/by the Holy Spirit. So, the distinction that John made was between water baptism and Spirit baptism, one by him, the other by Jesus, not another water baptism.

Remember, with the Holy Spirit in us we are in Christ, without the Holy Spirit in us we are not in Christ. What makes us in Christ? The indwelling Holy Spirit. Romans 8:9-11. Believe and we are saved Romans 10:9-11. By that indwelling we are placed into Christ 1 Corinthians 12:13-14. It's a baptism by the Holy Spirit that places us in Christ, not a baptism with water. 1 Peter 3:21.

Do you also know that Cornelius was already declared righteous in promise (The righteousness of God Romans 3:25-26, 10:4) because he already had a genuine OT faith, just like Abraham (Romans 4:3, Acts 10:2)? He was a genuine OT believer, just like Lydia (Acts 16:14), just like all the people in Acts. Like Acts 19, the disciples of John the Baptist who had never heard the Gospel, but still had a genuine OT faith and were declared righteous in promise because of that faith. All those and more were given to the Son by the Father because they were genuine OT believers and predestined to believe the Gospel and be conformed to Christlikeness (Romans 8:28-29). Others, who already heard the Gospel and believed were due the Promise of the Father, the Holy Spirit indwelling (John 7:38-39), and were given the right to be Sons of God, born again, which would be the result of that placing into Christ by faith with the indwelling Spirit (John 1:12-13). And like the 120 (Acts 1:4-5), those who already believed the Gospel before Christ ascended, were owed that promise because they believed. That was a unique point in time in history, with unique circumstances that can never be repeated. Trying to form doctrines for today based on that unique point in time and it's unique circumstances is something that one must be very careful with. There are no more OT believers who are due the Promise of the Father. The transition is over. Try to stay in the Epistles if you can. They apply for us today in a historic sense accurately.

All those OT promises were fulfilled with the indwelling, that which places us into Christ Jesus, making us one with Him. A spiritual immersion by faith. A spiritual placing into by faith. With that spiritual union with Christ Jesus, being made one with Him, we are placed into His death and resurrection, dying with Him and being raised up with Him, born again. We are also imputed with the righteousness of God, that which justifies us, Jesus' perfect obedience to the Law. And that perfect obedience to the Law made Him alone, Jesus, an acceptable sacrifice for our atonement. The Lamb of God without blemish.

It's "the" Holy Spirit indwelling that they were waiting for, the New Covenant, a fulfillment of God's promises all the back to Ezekiel, not water baptism.

John 14:16-20, 26. John 15:26. John 16:7-16.

Here's the whole thing with regards to Cornelius.

Acts 11:14-17 who will tell you words by which you and all your household will be saved.' And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, as upon us at the beginning. Then I remembered the word of the Lord, how He said, 'John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' If therefore God gave them the same gift as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?"

I just spent a month arguing with Catholics on another forum about what really saves us, and how they believed that water baptism initiated Spirit baptism was wrong. Catholics and those of like theology are forever holding onto the types to give the false appearance that the buildings and hierarchy are needed in a process of justification. I burned out and left that forum having learned my lesson. Aside from derailing this guys thread, I'm really not in the mood to argue about this, as I think it's a fruitless endeavor.

Dave

 

[Roger316]

As noted Acts 19 introduces a different circumstance:​

• It occurs many years later. 20+
• It involves ordinary disciples, not a new ethnic group.
• It records the same experience.
• It demonstrates that tongues was not merely a one-time sign announcing a new group entering the church.

These men were neither the original Jews of Pentecost nor the first Gentiles.

I understood you the first time. It doesn't change my mind.